351-Ucfnd 


)  |  aijLt  y\  (&}  4  C  r  Jl  o  f2t u  &T* W  bjlA 

*■■“  r  *  »i. 

UN‘VE>SiTV  .»i  ;;.u;r  ; 


X 


AN  OPEN  LETTER 


To  the  Honorable  Lyman  J.  Gage, 

SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


IN  REPLY  TO 

CERTAIN  STATEMENTS  CONCERNING 
THE  RECENT  CHANGES 

In  the  Civil  Service  Rules.7 


July  11,  1800. 


tfWVERS/7y 


GF  ’LUHOIS  LiiiRARv 


SEP  3  0  1915 


\ 


X 


▼ 


4 


fcCW/O 

to.jp 


AN  OPEN  LETTER. 

OFFICE  OF  THE 

NATIONAL  CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM  LEAGUE, 

54  WILLIAM  ST.,  NEW  YORK. 

July  ii ,  i8qg. 

To  the  Honorable  Lyman  J.  Gage, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

Sir: — The  Civil  Service  Reform  League,  on  June  5,  pub¬ 
lished  a  review  of  the  recent  Civil  Service  order  of  the  Presi¬ 
dent,  explaining  its  scope  and  effect,  and  declaring  that  “  a  back¬ 
ward  step  of  the  most  pronounced  character”  had  been  taken. 
You  have  since,  in  an  authorized  interview,  characterized  cer¬ 
tain  of  the  statements  contained  in  that  review  as  “  malicious 
misrepresentations,”  as  “  absolute  falsehoods,”  and,  again,  as 
“  false  interpretations  having  basis  only  in  the  wish  to  find 
something  in  the  action  of  the  President  to  condemn.” 

The  question  of  motive  which  you  have  seen  fit  to  raise 
might  safely  be  disregarded.  The  President  knows,  and  no 
doubt  you  know,  or  can  easily  learn,  how  earnestly  and  re¬ 
peatedly  the  League  and  its  affiliated  organizations  protested 
against  the  deplorable  measure  that  has  been  adopted,  or,  to 
speak  more  correctly,  against  a  measure  of  the  same  general 
character,  but  of  far  narrower  scope,  which  he  was  understood 
to  contemplate.  If,  with  this  knowledge,  it  is  supposed  that 
the  recent  action  was  inspired  only  by  “  the  wish  to  find  some¬ 
thing  to  condemn  ”  in  the  President’s  official  conduct,  discus¬ 
sion  of  the  subject  with  you  must  be  fruitless.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  public  is  interested  to  know 
why  our  statements  were  made,  but  whether  those  statements 
are  true  or  false,  and  what  are  the  nature  and  the  need  of  the 
present  situation. 

It  is  of  considerable  importance,  however,  that  the  public 
should  understand  what  has  been  your  own  attitude  towards 
the  Civil  Service  law  and  rules  since  you  took  office.  You 
then  announced  that  the  law  would  be  upheld  by  every  means 
within  your  power,  that  it  would  be  your  chief  aim  “  to  see 
that  a  business-like  administration  is  given  the  country  so  far 
as  the  duties  devolving  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  are 


concerned,”  and  that  your  appointments  would  be  exclusively 
“  with  regard  to  merit,  and  not  political  obligations.”  Many 
worthy  citizens,  recalling  this  pledge,  but  ignorant  as  to  man¬ 
ner  in  which  it  has  beerf  kept,  doubtless  still  believe  that  your 
official  course  has  been  consistently  in  accord  with  it,  and  at¬ 
tach  no  little  weight  to  your  assurances  regarding  the  harmless¬ 
ness  of  the  new  order.  It  is  in  every  way  desirable  that  such 
citizens  should  form  their  judgment  in  the  premises  with  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  facts,  and  in  addressing  you  publicly,  as  I  now 
do,  I  shall  first  point  out  what  has  been,  under  the  present  ad¬ 
ministration,  the  attitude  of  the  Treasury  Department : 

THE  INTERNAL- REVENUE  SERVICE. 

You  found  the  Internal  Revenue  Service  wholly  subject 
to  the  Civil  Service  rules.  With  the  exception  of  the  princi¬ 
pal  deputyships — one  in  each  of  the  sixty-three  districts — all 
of  the  subordinate  offices  in  that  highly  important  branch 
were  to  be  filled,  when  vacancies  occurred,  only  through  com¬ 
petitive  examinations  or  by  promotion.  Experience  had  shown 
that  the  force  engaged  in  the  levying  and  collection  of  the  in¬ 
ternal  taxes  should  not  only  be  as  well  trained  and  as  per¬ 
manent  as  possible,  but  free  from  political  dependence  of  any 
sort.  The  classification  of  the  service  had  been  ordered  with 
this  end  in  view.  Nothing  hindered  the  weeding-out  of  in¬ 
competents;  that  was  to  be  encouraged.  It  was  required 
merely  that  new  appointments  should  be  made  after  careful 
tests  of  character  and  fitness,  and  with  the  guarantee  to  the 
person  accepting  appointment  that  he  would  be  retained  so 
long  as  his  duties  were  efficiently  and  faithfully  performed. 
The  furnishing  of  bonds,  the  usual  guarantee  against  losses 
through  dishonesty,  was  required  as  a  matter  of  course  in 
every  case.  By  these  means  it  was  expected  that  the  expert 
organization  needed  so  urgently  would  be  developed.  When, 
as  a  result  of  the  Spanish  war,  the  internal  taxes  became  the 
chief  source  of  the  government  income,  the  need  of  this  sys¬ 
tem  became  even  more  manifest.  Following  the  incoming  of 
the  new  administration,  however,  there  were  sweeping  changes 
in  the  force  of  agents  and  clerks  known  commonly  as  “  dep¬ 
uty  collectors,”  in  many  districts.  The  new  appointments 
were  made  generally  in  open  disregard  of  the  Civil  Service 


3 


law,  and  in  most  cases,  for  political  reasons.  •  One  collector, 
in  the  Nashville  district,  admitted  under  oath  that  he  had 
been  governed  by  political  considerations,  and  the  same  frank 
admission  was  publicly  made  by  others.  After  a  number  of 
these  violations  were  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Treas¬ 
ury  Department,  especial  instructions  were  sent  to  collectors 
bidding  them  to  comply  with  the  lav/ ;  but  without  appar¬ 
ent  effect. 

In  July,  1897,  the  President  altered  the  situation  some¬ 
what  by  excepting  500  of  these  employees  through  an  order, 
which  was  erroneously  believed  at  the  time  to  have  extended 
the  area  of  the  classified  service.  On  the  same  date  the  rule 
forbidding  arbitrary  removals  was  promulgated,  and  a  second 
circular  was  issued  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Rev¬ 
enue,  pointing  out  the  application  of  this  to  all  positions  re¬ 
maining  classified  ;  this,  too,  had  no  effect.  At  various  times 
it  was  suggested  to  you  and  to  the  President  that  offending 
collectors  be  removed;  but  in  no  case  was  such  action  taken. 
Finally,  in  September,  1897,  when  the  practice  of  violation 
had  become  almost  general,  all  effort  to  enforce  the  law  within 
the  department  was  abandoned.  Although  this  was  twenty 
months  before  the  signing  of  the  recent  order  excepting  all 
deputies,  the  force  was  thereafter  treated  as  though  actually 
outside  the  classified  service.  The  Civil  Service  Commission 
continued  to  hold  investigations  where  complaints  were  made, 
and  to  submit  its  recommendations  for  the  correction  of  the 
•  evils  arising,  but  the  status  remained  unchanged.  In  the 
course  of  one  of  these  proceedings — that  at  Lancaster,  Pa. — 
the  results  of  the  political  method  of  filling  these  offices 
were  strikingly  shown  by  the  testimony  of  a  special  agent 
of  the  Treasury,  as  follows: 

The  extent  of  the  revenue  paid  depends  very  largely  upon  the  effi¬ 
ciency  of  the  deputy  collectors.  The  present  system  of  treating  places 
as  party  spoils  results  in  failure  to  secure  an  adequate  observance  of  the 
revenue  laws.  ...  A  new  man,  unfamiliar  with  the  difficult  and  techni¬ 
cal  work  of  a  deputy,  would  hardly  succeed  in  collecting  twenty  per 
cent,  of  the  amount  due  the  government,  especially  under  the  war  rev¬ 
enue  lav/.  ...  I  called  on  one  of  the  deputies  to  go  with  me  to  visit 
some  of  the  wholesale  liquor-dealers  in  York.  The  fellow  actually  did 
not  know  who  the  wholesale  liquor-dealers  in  the  city  of  York  were. 


4 


He  did  not  know  whether  they  had  paid  special  tax  as  wholesale  dealers, 
or  whether  they  had  paid  as  retail  dealers,  and  yet  this  city  was  his 
headquarters,  and  had  been  for  four  years. 

This  man,  who  had  been  appointed  before  these  places 
had  been  classified,  was  clearly  a  fit  subject  for  removal. 
The  same  agent  also  testified,  however,  that  the  Collector 
had  admitted  to  him  his  intention  to  u  put  his  political  friends 
into  the  offices  of  Deputy  Collector,  if  the  President  would 
rescind  or  modify  the  existing  rules.”  This  was  early  in  the  ad¬ 
ministration.  The  Collector,  following  the  example  of  others, 
did  not  wait  for  the  modifying  order.  He  proceeded  to  make 
the  majority  of  his  appointments,  in  his  own  way;  though  it 
is  true  that  he  has  made  still  other  changes  since  the  order  ap¬ 
peared.  For  the  future  it  may  be  expected  that  the  entire 
force  will  be  liable  to  complete  disorganization  in  this  manner, 
with  each  change  of  party. 

You  have  said  that  this  revival  of  the  spoils  system  in  the 
Internal  Revenue  Service  and  the  rejection  of  the  merit  plan, 
have  been  excusable  for  the  reason  that,  “  according  to  the 
highest  legal  opinion,  the  Treasury  Department  could  get  ” — 
which  it  seems  could  have  been  discovered  only  after  the 
greater  part  of  the  mischief  had  been  done — these  officers 
should  not  have  been  included  in  the  classification.  If  a 
lawyer  has  been  found  who  supports  the  proposition  that  the 
law  granting  the  power  to  appoint  is  not  modified  by  the  lat¬ 
ter  enactment  of  the  Civil  Service  law,  fixing  the  viethod  of 
appointment,  the  public  would  be  interested  to  learn  his  name 
and  his  views.  The  Attorney- General,  to  whom  application 
was  first  made,  declined  to  give  an  opinion.  The  Civil  Ser¬ 
vice  Commission,  on  the  other  hand,  produced  the  opinions 
of  a  number  of  leading  lawyers,  including  a  former  President 
of  the  American  Bar  Association,  and  a  former  Solicitor- 
General,  all  to  the  effect  that  the  application  of  the  law  was 
unquestionable.  To  advance  the  theory  in  any  case  that  a 
statute  that  is  in  operation  may  be  ignored  merely  because 
some  interested  person  has  challenged  its  validity  is  an  un¬ 
usual,  not  to  say  a  revolutionary  proceeding. 

The  disregard  of  the  law  in  this  branch  of  the  Treasury 
Department  during  the  past  two  years  has  served,  in  many 


5 


parts  of  the  country,  to  bring  the  entire  Civil  Service  system 
into  disrepute. 

THE  WAR  EMERGENCY  APPOINTMENTS. 

Since  the  opening  of  the  war  with  Spain,  the  number  of 
appointments  in  the  Washington  offices  of  the  Treasury  De¬ 
partment,  through  competition,  under  the  Civil  Service  rules, 
has  been  insignificant.  The  number  of  appointments  through 
other  means — chiefly  under  the  war  acts — has  been  very  large. 
When  the  urgency-deficiency  bill  was  passed  by  Congress,  in 
June,  1898,  a  clause  was  inserted  permitting  the  employment 
of  certain  clerks  in  the  War  and  Treasury  Departments,  for 
a  period  not  to  exceed  one  year,  “  without  compliance  with 
the  conditions  of  the  Civil  Service  act.” 

In  response  to  questions  from  various  members,  the  chair¬ 
man  of  the  appropriations  committee,  Mr.  Cannon,  stated 
that  “  a  few,”  only  of  such  clerks  would  be  needed,  and  that 
he  had  been  assured  by  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  that 
in  the  emergency  existing  it  “  would  not  be  practicable  to  get 
them  under  the  Civil  Service  rules.”.  (Cong.  Record,  June 
21,  p.  6180).  This  was  the  beginning.  When  the  number  of 
emergency  employees  grew,  and  the  same  argument  was  used 
to  secure  further  exemptions,  I  addressed  a  letter  of  inquiry 
on  the  subject  to  the  Civil  Service  Commission.  The  Com¬ 
mission  in  its  reply,  dated  October  22  last,  declared  that  the 
representations  of  the  Treasury  officials,  as  repeated  by  Mr. 
Cannon,  were  utterly  without  foundation;  that  when  the  defi¬ 
ciency  bill  was  passed,  the  registers  of  eligibles  contained  the 
names  of  6,834  persons,  whose  fitness  had  been  tested  by  exam¬ 
ination,  and  from  among  whom  the  clerical  employees  required 
might  have  been  secured  at  the  shortest  notice,  and  that  the 
facts  were  so  reported  to  Congress  at  the  time.  It  was  pointed 
out  that  in  1890  three  hundred  clerks  had  been  appointed  in 
one  day  for  the  increased  work  of  the  Pension  office,  and 
that  on  many  other  occasions  in  the  past  emergency  forces 
had  been  organized  with  the  same  expedition.  These  state¬ 
ments  were  widely  published.  Nevertheless,  in  every  sub¬ 
sequent  act  passed  by  Congress  authorizing  increases  of 
force,  the  same  exempting  clause  was  inserted,  and  both  the 
War  and  Treasury  Departments,  failing  to  correct  the  erro- 


6 


neous  statements  of  the  Treasury  officials,  continued  to  make 
their  appointments  without  resort  to  the  Civil  Service  Com¬ 
mission.  I  find,  on  examining  these  acts,  that  the  “few” 
clerks  mentioned  by  Mr.  Cannon  have  become  many  hundreds, 
and  that  the  appropriations  made  within  the  year  for  addi¬ 
tional  “temporary'”  service  to  the  civil  branch  amount,  ap¬ 
proximately,  to  $2,200,000. 

The  act  of  February  24,  1899,  extended  the  period  of  all 
appointments  made  under  the  previous  acts  for  a  second 
year.  Finally,  in  the  urgency-deficiency  bill  of  March  3, 
1899,  it  was  provided  that  “  hereafter” — without  limit  of  time 
-—all  additional  employees,  “  rendered  necessary  because  of 
the  increased  work  of  the  war  with  Spain,”  may  be  appointed 
“  without  compliance  with  the  conditions  of  the  Civil  Service 
act.” 

From  March  4,  1897,  to  September  30, 1898,  there  were  but 
fourteen  appointments  from  competitive  lists  in  the  Treasury 
Department,  not  including  the  Bureau  of  Engraving  and  Print¬ 
ing.  I  believe  that  there  have  since  been  eight  or  ten.  Dur¬ 
ing  the  same  period  ninety-four  appointments  of  clerks  were 
made  in  the  same  offices  under  the  war  acts — exclusive  of 
promotions  and  .transfers — some  after  “  pass  ”  examinations. 
There  have  since  been  many  more.  The  six  hundred  ap¬ 
pointed  in  the  Washington  offices  of  the  War  Department — 
whose  unfitness  as  a  class  has  been  proved  by  the  best  of 
testimony — I  need  not  mention  here.  I  add  no  comment  to 
the  figures  given.  Whatever  may  have  happened  within  the 
department,  it  is  clear  that  so  far  as  the  operation  of  the 
Civil  Service  law  is  concerned,  the  old  system  has  been  to  a 
very  appreciable  degree  reestablished.  I  offer  no  speculation 
as  to  the  character  of  individual  appointees,  or  the  influences 
that  have  led  to  their  selection.  One  of  the  “  temporary  ” 
clerks,  whose  salary  has  been  increased  since  his  original  em¬ 
ployment,  is,  I  am  told,  the  son  of  the  Second  Assistant  Sec¬ 
retary  of  the  Treasury.  Whether  or  not  these  employees  are 
retained  permanently,  through  successive  acts  of  Congress, 
or  through  other  means,  it  is  the  fact  that  an  effective 
method  of  defeating  the  ends  of  the  Civil  Service  law  has 
been  freely  employed,  and  that  the  rights  of  many  hundreds 
of  men  and  women  who  entered  the  examinations  without  a 


7 


doubt  of  the  good  faith  of  the  government  have  been 
ignored. 


THE  USE  OF  TEMPORARY  APPOINTMENTS. 

Many  positions  in  the  Treasury  Department  have  been 
filled  without  competitive  examination,  through  “  temporary  ” 
appointments,  in  the  absence  of  eligible  lists.  That  this 
practice  had  become  an  abuse  prior  to  the  issuing  of  the 
President’s  recent  order  is  a  matter  of  common  notoriety. 
While  due  in  part  to  the  inability  of  the  Commission,  for  lack 
of  funds,  to  hold  certain  special  grades  of  examinations 
promptly,  it  seems  attributable  in  larger  part  to  the  lack  of 
cooperation  of  appointing  officers,  and  to  the  frequent  indis¬ 
position  of  such  officers  to  end  the  term  of  service  of  their 
“  temporary”  employees  by  facilitating  the  preparation  of  lists 
from  which  permanent  selections  must  be  made. 

I  offer  such  an  instance  that  illustrates  incidentally,  the 
spirit  in  which  some  of  the  higher  offices  have  been  treated. 

You  displaced  Mr.  Worthington  C.  Ford  from  the  office  of 
Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  making  no  charges,  and  giv¬ 
ing  no  reason  except  that  you  wished  the  position  for  another 
man.  For  many  years  this  important  post  served  as  a  sort  of 
adjunct  to  the  campaign  committee  of  whichever  party  hap¬ 
pened  to  be  in  power.  Mr.  Ford  removed  it  wholly  from  pol¬ 
itics,  and  gave  it  a  standing  similar  to  that  of  corresponding 
departments  in  European  governments.  With  the  view  of 
continuing  this  status,  it  had  been  placed,  in  1896,  in  the 
classified  service.  You  appointed  “  temporarily,”  to  the  va¬ 
cancy  you  had  created,  not  a  known  commercial  expert  or 
student  of  political  economy,  but  a  former  employee  of  a 
political  press  bureau.  An  examination  was  ordered  by  the 
Civil-Service  Commission,  and  the  papers  for  this  were  pre¬ 
pared.  The  holding  of  the  examination  was  deferred,  how¬ 
ever,  and  successive  “  temporary  ”  appointments  of  the  same 
person  were  allowed,  until  the  President,  by  the  recent  order, 
placed  the  office  in  the  excepted  list. 

THE  REMOVAL  RULE  AND  OTHER  MATTERS. 

I  will  refer  to  other  instances  of  circumvention  of  the  rules 
in  the  Treasury  Department — as,  for  instance,  the  employ- 


8 


ment  of  “  laborers  ”  to  perform  classified  work — as  I  proceed. 

The  inconsistent  conduct  of  the  department  with  reference  to 

the  rule  regulating  removals  should,  however,  be  mentioned 

here.  No  doubt  that  rule  has  been  fairlv  construed  and  en- 

* 

forced  in  many  cases  in  the  Treasury  Department.  In  others 
— quite  apart  from  those  in  the  Internal  Revenue  Service — it 
has  not.  Your  own  attitude  respecting  the  latter  class  is  in¬ 
stanced  by  the  following: 

More  than  eighteen  months  ago  the  newly  appointed  Col¬ 
lector  of  Customs  at  Port  Huron  dismissed  W.  F.  Muir  and 
three  other  persons  whom  he  found  serving  as  deputies.  Each 
of  these  had  been  told  that  if  he  did  not  resign  he  would  be 
removed  on  the  charge  of  having  paid  political  assessments 
some  five  years  before.  Each  refused  to  resign,  and  his 
removal  followed.  It  happened  that  in  1896  the  Civil-Service 
Commission  had  secured  the  conviction  of  certain  officers  at 
this  port  for  collecting  assessments,  two  years  before,  from  the 
whole  force  of  subordinates.  Although  those  who  had  paid 
technically  violated  the  law,  their  actual  innocence  was  clearly 
proven,  and  after  having  given  the  testimony  on  which  the  real 
offenders  were  found  guilty,  each  was  promised  full  immunity 
by  both  the  Commission,  and  by  the  District  Attorney.  When 
Muir,  for  instance,  was  removed  on  the  preposterous  reason 
assigned,  not  only  was  the  President’s  rule  that  no  removal 
should  be  made  except  for  “just  cause”  violated,  but  the  good 
faith  of  the  government  was  broken.  On  ascertaining  that 
Muir  had  been  a  highly  qualified  officer,  well  fitted  for  reten¬ 
tion,  the  Commission  urged  repeatedly  upon  the  Treasury 
Department  the  importance  of  correcting  the  wrong  that  had 
been  done.  But  although  the  matter  had  your  personal  atten¬ 
tion  you  declined  to  interfere. 

THE  WHOLESALE  CONDONEMENT  OF  VIOLATIONS  OF  THE  LAW. 

But  the  action,  perhaps,  the  most  damaging  to  the  merit 
system,  to  be  charged  to  the  Treasury  Department  under  your 
administration,  is  the  decision  that  persons  placed  in  positions 
in  any  branch  in  disregard  of  the  Civil-Service  rules  shall  not 
be  deemed  to  have  been  appointed  in  violation  of  the  law,  and 
shall  be  paid  their  salaries  as  though  introduced  to  the  service 
in  a  wholly  regular  manner. 


9 


In  August,  1897,  the  Civil-Service  Commission  asked  your 
aid  in  establishing  the  system  in  successful  opeiation  in  the 
Civil  Service  of  the  states  of  New  York,  Massachusetts,  and 
Illinois,  under  which  disbursing  officers  are  permitted  to  pay 
salaries  only  to  those  shown  by  certificate  to  have  been  ap¬ 
pointed  in  legal  manner.  It  was  explained  that  such  a  check 
would  put  an  end  to  many  rapidly  growing  abuses.  You  did 
not  agree  to  this  plan,  but  you  stated,  in  effect,  that  salaries 
should  not  be  paid  to  those  whose  irregular  appointments 
might  affirmatively  be  shown.  On  October  17,  1898 — this  by 
way  of  instance — the  Commission  sent  to  the  department  the 
names  of  271  persons  holding  positions  in  the  Department  of 
Justice,  whose  illegal  appointments  were  thus  shown,  asking 
that  these  should  not  be  recognized.  The  receipt  of  this  list 
was  acknowledged,  but  the  salaries  were  paid.  During  this 
entire  period,  in  fact,  so  far  as  can  be  learned,  there  was  no 
case  in  which  a  payment  of  salary  was  refused.  Finally,  in 
April  last,  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  gave  formal  notice 
that  thenceforth  violation  of  the  Civil  Service  rules  would  not 
be  considered  as  a  sufficient  reason  for  refusing  payments  in 
any  case.  As  a  basis  for  this  decision,  the  following  remark¬ 
able  doctrine  was  put  forth  : 

“  This  violation  or  disregard,  as  before  said,  is  not  of  the  law,  but 
of  an  executive  regulation,  and  by  the  agent  of  the  Executive,  who  is 
alone  responsible  to  the  Executive  for  such  action.  The  head  of  an  exe¬ 
cutive  department  is  simply  an  instrument,  the  hand  of  the  Executive. 
The  power  which  makes  the  rule  or  regulation  can  waive  its  enforce¬ 
ment  as  certainly  as  the  power  which  appoints  an  officer  can  remove  such 
officer  at  its  pleasure,  unless  prohibited  by  the  law  itself.” 

The  “  opinion  ”  was  given  in  the  face  of  an  unbroken  line 
of  Supreme  Court  decisions  of  directly  opposite  effect.  It 
means  that,  according  to  the  the  theory  of  the  writer,  any  ap¬ 
pointing  officer  may  disregard  the  law  as  freely  as  he  may  wish, 
without  interference  by  the  'Treasury  Department  and  so  long 
as  he  is  not  himself  removed  by  the  President.  While  it 
stands,  it  will  tend  inevitably  to  encourage  those  practices  that 
have  in  the  past  proved  so  demoralizing,  and  that  are  now 
condoned,  and  to  take  away  the  most  necessary  guarantee  of 
faithful  enforcement. 


10 


It  does  not  appear  that  any  steps  have  been  taken  to  dis¬ 
place  the  officer  who  thus  stands  in  the  way  of  correct  admin¬ 
istration,  or  to  set  aside  his  disastrous  ruling. 

THE  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  LEAGUE. 

To  say  the  least,  Sir,  your  own  position  in  this  controversy 
is  seriously  weakened  by  the  fact,  which  I  think  I  have  made 
fairly  plain,  that  many  of  those  abuses  most  severely  censured 
by  the  press  and  the  public  have  arisen  in  the  department  over 
which  you  preside,  or  are  due  to  the  laxity  or  open  hostility  of 
your  official  subordinates.  Noting  this,  and  also  that  since  the 
appearance  of  your  interview  time  has  been  allowed  for 
the  voluntary  correction  of  those  among  your  assertions  which, 
on  reflection,  you  might  recognize  as  inaccurate  or  unjust, and 
that  opportunity  has  been  taken  also  to  make  inquires  of  the 
Civil-Service  Commission  concerning  matters  that  may  de¬ 
pend  for  substantiation  upon  its  authority,  I  shall  show  : 

(I.)  That  the  statements  of  June  5  concerning  the  Presi¬ 
dent’s  order  were  absolutely  correct;  (II.)  that  the  failure  of 
the  administration  as  yet  to  redeem  its  pledges  to  enforce  the 
law  “  thoroughly  and  honestly,”  and  to  extend  its  application 
“  wherever  practicable,”  is  more  than  ever  grave  and  mani¬ 
fest  ;  and  (III.)  that  the  future  welfare  and  integrity  of  the 
merit  system,  as  well  as  simple  good  faith,  demand  that  the 
recent  order,  in  the  main,  be  revoked. 

The  specifications  of  the  League’s  address  to  which  you 
have  referred  I  will  repeat  and  discuss  seriatim.  The  first  of 
these  was  as  follows : 

NUMBER  AND  CHARACTER  OF  POSITIONS  EXCEPTED. 

“(1)  The  order  withdraws  from  the  classified  service  not  merely  three 
thousand  or  four  thousand  offices  and  positions,  but,  as  nearly  as  can 
now  be  estimated,  10,109.  It  removes  3,693  from  the  class  of  positions 
filled  hitherto  either  through  competitive  examination  or  through  an 
orderly  practice  of  promotion,  and  it  transfers  6,416  other  positions,  in 
the  War  Department,  filled  hitherto  through  a  competitive  registration 
system  under  the  control  of  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  to  a  system 
to  be  devised  and  placed  in  effect  by  the  present  Secretary  of  War.” 

The  figures  given  are  based  on  the  tables  of  the  Official 
Register  of  the  United  States,  summarized  in  House  Docu- 


II 


ment  202,  Fifty-fourth  Congress — the  latest  definite  authority. 
Of  the  total  of  10,109  positions  affected,  those  hitherto  sub¬ 
ject  to  competitive  examination  and  now  withdrawn  are  as 
follows : 

Treasury  Department: — Deputy  Collectors  of  Internal  Revenue, 

900  ;  Storekeepers  and  gaugers,  600  ;  Shipping  Commis¬ 
sioners,  27  ;  additional  deputies  in  Customs  Service,  13  ; 
the  Alaska  Service,  50  ;  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  1; 
employees  at  Mints  and  Assay  offices,  42  ;  Miscellaneous, 

11 .  1,644 

Interior  Department: — Pension  Examining  Surgeons,  606;  Land 
Office  clerks,  198;  Clerks  at  Pension  Agencies,  18;  Finan¬ 
cial  clerks  at  Indian  Agencies,  57;  Examiners  of  Indian 
timber  lands,  23;  special  Inspectors  and  Agents,  68;  Super¬ 


intendents  of  Logging  and  Irrigation,  18;  Reservation  Sur¬ 
veyors,  10;  Miscellaneous,  35 .  1,033 

Department  of  Justice: — Office  Deputy  Marshals,  204;  assistant 
attorneys,  30;  private  secretaries  to  District  Attorneys,  76; 
Examiners,  8 .  318 

Post  Office  Department: — Financial  clerks,  248;  Physicians  to 
act  as  clerks,  174;  private  secretaries,  24;  Miscellaneous, 

1 . 447 

Dept,  of  Agriculture: — Agents  and  Experts,  40;  State  Statisti¬ 
cal  Agents,  41 .  81 

War  Department: — Employees  of  Military  Parks,  58;  Army 

Paymasters’  clerks,  (indefinite), .  58 

Navy  Department: — Assistant  Civilian  Inspectors .  50 

All  Departments: — Private  Secretaries,  40;  Officers  appointed 

by  the  President  without  confirmation,  22 .  62 


3,693 

I  will  not  rehearse  the  arguments  that  have  been  made  for 
the  retention  in  the  competitive  classification  of  the  most  of 
the  offices  and  positions  in  this  list.  I  will  merely  emphasize 
the  fact  that,  as  in  the  case  of  the  internal-revenue  deputies, 
each  is  taken  outright  from  the  stable,  non-political  class,  and 
placed  in  that  class  which  is  notoriously  subject  to  frequent 
and  arbitrary  change.  The  competitive  entrance  test  is  but 
one  feature  of  the  merit  system.  The  offer  of  opportunity  for 
advancement  and  the  protection  against  removal  except  for 


12 


fair  reasons,  and  atter  an  opportunity  for  an  explanation,  and, 
finally,  the  exclusion  of  politics  where  politics  has  no  place, 
are  features  no  less  essential. 

The  movement  for  civil-service  reform  in  the  past  has 
been  constantly  forward.  Through  the  action  of  successive 
Presidents  the  time  has  been  brought  gradually  nearer  when, 
m  the  language  of  the  Senate  committee  that  reported  the 
civil-service  bill,  the  merit  system  should  include  “nearly  all 
of  the  vast  numbers  of  appointed  officials,”  whose  duties  are 
not  political,  but  “  who  carry  into  effect  the  orders  of  the 
Executive  or  heads  of  departments,  whether  at  Washington  or 
elsewhere.”  When  this  advance  not  only  is  checked,  but 
when  thousands  of  positions  are  restored  to  the  old  basis, 
what  could  more  fittingly  be  termed  a  “  backward  step  ”  ? 

THE  USE  OF  “  PASS  EXAMINATIONS.” 

In  discussing  these  withdrawals  you  have  attached  im¬ 
portance  to  the  fact  that  persons  appointed  to  some  among 
the  positions  affected  are  to  be  subjected  to  non-competitive 
or  “  pass  ”  examinations.  This  requires  a  word.  In  the 
development  of  the  merit  system  nothing  has  been  shown 
more  clearly  than  the  fact  that  for  its  most  important  pur¬ 
poses  the  “  pass  ”  test  is  ineffectual  and  generally  worthless. 
Under  this  system  in  the  consular  service,  for  instance,  there 
were  112  candidates  examined  during  the  first  year  of  the 
present  administration,  and  of  these  m  passed  successfully 
and  were  appointed.  During  the  same  period  nearly  90  per 
cent,  of  the  salaried  consuls  were  removed  for  political 
reasons  and  new  men  put  in  their  places.  Again,  in  except¬ 
ing  the  internal-revenue  deputies  of  higher  grade,  in  July, 
1897,  the  President  laid  down  the  non-competitive  rule.  The 
results  of  this  attempt,  I  am  told,  were  even  less  satisfactory. 
It  appears  that  the  appointments  were  invariably  made  first 
and  the  examinations  held  afterward.  Moreover,  while  in 
this  case  a  large  proportion  of  the  persons  appointed  failed  to 
pass.  I  am  told  that  some  at  least  of  these  have  been  re¬ 
tained  in  the  employ  of  the  Treasury  Department,  the  failure 
notwithstanding.  I  have  asked  the  permission  of  the  Civil- 
Service  Commission  to  examine  the  records  that  would  prove 
or  disprove  this  allegation.  The  Commission  has  so  far 


*3 


treated  the  League  and  its  representatives  at  all  times  with 
perfect  courtesy.  Its  records  have  been  invariably  opened  to 
us,  as  1  have  been  led  to  believe  they  have  been  to  all  re¬ 
sponsible  parties.  Many  of  the  references  in  this  letter  are 
proof  of  that  fact.  In  the  present  instance,  however,  it  has 
declined  to  grant  the  permission  asked,  for  the  reason  that 
this  would  be,  in  its  judgment,  “against  public  policy,  and 
not  in  the  interests  of  the  public  service.” 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  whatever  investigation  maybe  made 
under  your  authority  will  prove  that  the  statement  in  question 
is  not  borne  out  by  the  facts. 

THE  CHANGES  IN  THE  WAR  DEPARTMENT. 

The  positions  withdrawn  from  classification  in  the  field 
and  construction  branches  of  the  War  Department  include 
those  of  superintendents,  overseers,  sub-inspectors,  and  store¬ 
keepers,  down  to  the  various  classes  of  mechanics.  'I  he 
numbers  affected,  compiled  from  the  official  authority  above 
mentioned,  are  as  follows  : 


Quartermaster’s  Department  at  Large  .  622 

Medical  Department  at  Large .  28 

Ordnance  Department  at  Large .  4,377 

Engineer  Department  at  Large .  1,389 


6.41  G 

The  language  of  the  order  relating  to  each  of  these  classes, 
is  as  follows: 

“  Appointments  to  these  positions  shall  be  made  hereafter 
on  registration  tests  of  fitness  prescribed  in  regulations  to  be 
issued  by  the  Secretary  of  War  and  approved  by  the 
President  ” 

You  say  that  the  effect  of  this  is  to  place  these  positions, 
“  in  exactly  the  condition  that  similar  places  in  the  Navy  De¬ 
partment  have  been  in  for  several  years.”  The  navy-yard 
rules  are  under  the  control  of  the  Civil-Service  Commission, 
and  cannot  be  altered  without  its  consent.  They  were  so 
placed  by  President  Cleveland,  chiefly  that  they  might  “  be 
given  stability  independent  of  changes  of  administration.”  It 
is  most  significant,  moreover,  that,  as  the  League  indicated, 


14 


the  commission  had  established  the  navy-yard  plan  in  the 
War  Department,  under  the  immediate  control  of  local 
boards  of  engineers,  nearly  two  years  ago,  and  that  this  plan 
was  being  successfully  extended  at  the  time  the  order  was 
issued.  The  rules  were  embodied  in  circular  No.  13  of  the 
Engineers,  issued  August  16,  1897.  Col.  Alexander  Mac- 
Ivenzie,  assistant  chief,  gave  testimony  as  to  their  results  be¬ 
fore  the  Senate  civil-service  committee  in  February,  1898,  as 
follows  : 

‘  *  There  are  a  few  officers  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers  whose  unfavorable 
impressions  of  the  Civil  Service  law,  formed  in  advance  of  a  full  knowl¬ 
edge  of  its  requirements,  have  not  been  changed  by  experience,  but 
correspondence  with  officers  leads  me  to  believe  that  the  large  majority 
prefer  a  competitive  merit  system  of  securing  employees,  rather  than 
one  in  which  personal  opinions  or  wishes  are  to  control.” 

Notwithstanding  this  expert  approval  of  the  plan  under 
development,  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  May,  1898,  addressed 
a  letter  to  the  Civil-Service  Commission,  asking  that  each  of 
these  classes  be  excluded  absolutely  from  the  operation  of  the 
law.  His  request  was  not  granted.  When  at  the  suggestion 
of  Secretary  Alger,  the  registration  system,  so  far  as  it  had  al¬ 
ready  been  established,  is  set  aside,  and  this  force,  instead  of 
being  “  placed  in  exactly  the  same  condition  ”  as  that  in  the 
navy-yards,  is  made  subject  to  the  control  of  Secretary  Alger 
alone,  do  you  believe  that  an  enlightened  public  opinion  will 
accept  the  change  as  intended  to  establish  a  satisfactory,  non¬ 
political  system  ?  Mere  “  registration  tests  of  fitness,”  with¬ 
out  the  essential  elements  that  have  made  the  navy  yard  plan 
work  so  well,  must  prove  relatively  worthless.  If,  following 
this  public  discussion  of  the  subject,  an  equivalent  to  the 
navy-yard  plan  is  indeed  established,  that  will  be  a  cause  for 
congratulation. 

THE  VALIDATION  OF  TEMPORARY  APPOINTMENTS. 

The  second  specification  of  the  League  was  as  follows : 

“  (2.)  It  declares  regular  at  least  one  thousand  additional  appoint¬ 
ments  made  temporarily,  without  examination — in  many  cases  in  direct 
disregard  of  the  law — in  branches  that  are  not  affected  by  the  exceptions, 
but  that  remain  nominally  competitive.” 


The  positions  thus  filled  are,  for  the  most  part,  of  a  special 
character,  and  in  branches  outside  of  Washington.  You  do 
not  dispute  the  statement  of  the  number  affected,  so  I  shall 
not  need  to  justify  that.  In  each  instance,  the  Civil-Service 
Commission  had  permitted  an  appointment  without  examina¬ 
tion  pending  the  preparation  of  an  eligible  list.  Without 
wairant  for  such  unusual  action  in  the  law  itself,  the  order 
declares  that  competition  in  each  such  case  may  be  waived, 
and  the  appointees  permanently  retained.  The  number  of 
“  temporary  ”  appointments  during  the  first  year  of  the 
present  administration  increased  threefold  over  that  of  the 
year  preceding.  Some  appointing  officers  construed  the  rules 
as  authorizing  them  to  make  “  temporary  ”  appointments  to 
fill  any  and  every  vacancy,  regardless  of  the  existence  of 
lists.  Others,  as,  for  instance,  the  Appraiser  at  New  York, 
refused  to  appoint  from  the  lists,  even  where  new  ones  were 
especially  created.  While  the  Commission  had  no  difficulty 
in  meeting  the  demand  for  eligibles  in  most  brandies,  in  these 
special  cases  it  needed  support  to  properly  conduct  its  work. 
As  I  have  pointed  out,  the  co-operation  of  appointing  officers 
was  often  lacking.  Again,  although  in  asking  Congress  for 
the  small  additional  sum  needed  to  cover  its  increased  work, 
the  Commission  showed  clearly  that  the  operation  of  the  rules 
in  branches  originally  classified  had  saved  three  millions  an¬ 
nually  in  the  Washington  offices  alone,  its  request  was  denied 
— after  an  extended  debate  that  you  may  recall.  It  does  not 
appear  that  at  that  critical  time  the  President  or  any  head  of 
a  department  urged  upon  Congress  the  importance  of  provid¬ 
ing  for  the  emergencies  in  question.  As  it  is,  when  a  thou 
sand  persons  are  admitted  permanently  to  the  classified 
service,  after  a  failure  to  facilitate  properly  the  holding  of 
examinations,  the  precedent  established  must  be  viewed  as 
most  unfortunate. 

THE  WAR-EMERGENCY  APPOINTMENTS. 

The  League  said  also  concerning  the  effect  of  this  feature 
of  the  President’s  order  : 

“(3)  It  permits  the  permanent  appointment  of  persons  employed, 
without  examination,  for  emergency  purposes  during  the  course  of  the  war 
with  Spain,  thus  furnishing  a  standing  list  of  many  thousands  frotr 


i6 


which  positions  in  the  War  Department  may  be  filled,  without  tests  of 
fitness,  for  a  long  time  to  come.” 

In  the  several  provisions  made  by  Congress  for  additional 
clerks  and  others  for  war  purposes  these  employees  were  in¬ 
variably  styled  as  “  temporary,”  and  as  such  were  placed  on 
the  government  rolls.  That  part  of  the  President’s  order  here 
in  question  reads  as  follows : 

“  All  persons  serving  under  temporary  appointments  at  the  date  of 
the  approval  of  this  section  may  be  permanently  appointed  in  the  dis¬ 
cretion  of  the  proper  appointing  officer.” 

You  say  that  this  language  is  not  to  be  applied  to  the  em¬ 
ployees  in  question.  It  is  gratifying  to  learn  that  this  is  the 
construction  the  administration  has  decided  to  adopt,  for  no 
doubt  you  speak  with  authority.  When,  however,  you  declare 
the  statement  that  it  “  permits  ”  of  a  different  construction  to 
be  “absolutely  false,”  you  are  in  a  different  position.  The 
view  taken  by  the  League  as  to  the  effect  of  this  rule  was  the 
view  taken  universally.  On  May  29,  the  Washington  Star, 
for  instance,  announced  that: 

“  There  is  great  joy  on  the  part  of  the  temporary  employees  of  the 
War  Department  because  of  the  fact  that  under  the  President’s  Civil 
Service  order  issued  to-day  they  may  be  given  permanent  appointment 
in  the  classified  service  at  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary.” 

This  impression  was  not  corrected,  I  am  told,  until  after 
the  subject  had  been  seriously  debated  by  officers  high  in 
authority,  and  until  after  your  interview  had  appeared. 

The  original  appointment  of  these  emergency  employees, 
and  the  manner  of  their  retention,  to  the  present  time,  I  have 
already  discussed. 

THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  TRANSFER  RULE. 

The  bearing  upon  future  appointments  of  the  rule  govern¬ 
ing  transfers,  is  covered  by  the  fourth  specification  : 

‘(4)  It  alters  the  rules  to  the  effect  that  in  future  any  person  appointed 
with  or  without  competitive  examination,  or  without  any  examination, 
may  be  placed  by  transfer  in  any  classified  position,  without  regard  to 
the  character  or  similarity  of  the  employments  interchanged,  and  after 
non-competitive  examination  only.” 


*7 


You  argue,  in  effect,  that  the  opportunities  provided  for 
evasion  of  the  law  by  this  and  similar  changes  are  not  so 
serious  as  we  have  stated,  for  the  reason  that  the  administra¬ 
tion  does  not  intend  to  use  them.  But  you  should  appreciate 
that  this  argument  cannot  alter  a  literal  or  legal  construction 
in  any  case.  Neither  can  the  professed  belief  of  appointing 
officers  that  they  will  successfully  resist  the  pressure  for  the 
employment  of  those  opportunities,  which,  sooner  or  later, 
will  be  brought  to  bear,  be  accepted  as  reassuring. 

You  say  that  “  the  one  change  which  has  been  made  in  the 
rule  permitting  transfers  has  been  the  dropping  of  part  of  the 
last  sentence  of  that  rule  as  it  stood,  the  clause : 

“  Or,  if  in  said  position  there  is  not  required,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Commission,  the  performance  of  the  same  class  of  work  or  the  practice 
of  the  same  mechanical  trade  performed  or  practised  in  the  position  from 
which  transfer  is  proposed.” 

Exactly  so,  but  the  clause  that  you  quote  was  the  very 
essence  of  the  rule,  the  one  thing  that  prevented  its  misap¬ 
plication  for  other  than  its  legitimate  purposes.  It  marked 
the  difference  between  transfer  and  promotion,  allowing  the 
former  method  for  the  interchange  of  positions  of  similar 
character,  but  requiring  competitive  examination,  so  far  as 
practicable,  in  every  case— whether  for  promotion  or  original 
appointment — as  the  regular  method  for  filling  positions  of 
higher  grade.  To  enable  employees  to  reach  positions  for 
which  they  were  not  in  line  for  promotion,  but  for  the  duties 
of  which  they  might  show  especial  talent,  to  permit  of  “  mo¬ 
bility,”  in  short,  the  rule  provided  expressly  that  a  person  em¬ 
ployed  in  any  grade  should  not  for  that  reason  be  debarred 
from  competitive  examination  for  any  other  grade.  The  effect 
of  the  change  is  exactly  as  has  been  stated.  A  person  ap¬ 
pointed  after  having  passed  one  of  the  lower  grades  of  com¬ 
petitive  examination,  or  having  gained  a  position  subject  to 
registration  merely,  without  examination,  can  now  be  trans¬ 
ferred,  after  a  “  pass  ”  examination  only,  to  any  competitive 
position  in  the  classified  service.  The  Civil- Service  Com¬ 
mission  is  already  permitting  transfers  between  grades,  which 
under  the  old  rules  were  denied.  The  effect  of  this  practice 
is  likely  to  be  that  the  higher  grades,  in  time,  will  be  placed 
on  a  virtually  non-competitive  basis. 


It  is  notorious  that  the  use  of  evasive  means  to  get  into  the 
service  becomes  common  as  soon  as  such  means  are  fairly 
discovered.  As  an  illustration  :  During  the  past  year  it  has 
become  a  frequent  practice  to  send  persons  to  be  appointed, 
without  examination,  as  clerks  at  post-offices  about  to  be  pro¬ 
vided  with  the  free  delivery — and  thus  to  be  included  in  the 
classified  service — and  immediately  following,  to  transfer  these, 
again  without  examination,  to  similar  posts  in  other  offices  or 
other  departments  for  which  they  have  actually  been  intended. 
A  clerk  appointed  at  the  post-office  at  Napa,  Cal.,  was  within 
a  few  days  transferred  in  this  way  to  the  San  Francisco  Mint; 
another  appointed  at  Greenville,  O.,  was  brought'  at  once  to 
Washington,  and  at  least  four  others  were  brought  from  cities 
in  Virginia,  Florida,  and  Colorado,  to  serve  in  the  department 
of  which  you  are  the  head. 

The  employment  of  persons  without  examination  as  “  la¬ 
borers,”  and  their  subsequent  assignment  to  classified  duties, 
constitute  an  abuse  of  long  standing.  The  cases  in  the  Ap¬ 
praiser’s  office  at  New  York  are  fair  instances  :  and  if  you  will 
cause  inquiries  to  be  made  in  the  New  York  Immigration 
offices,  you  will  find  others  of  very  similar  nature.  So  serious 
has  this  evil  grown  under  this  administration,  in  fact,  that  the 
Civil-Service  Commission  gives  nearly  a  page  and  a  half  of  its 
recent  annual  report  to  its  discussion.  Referring  to  the 
rule  of  June,  1896,  forbidding  the  practice,  it  says : 

“  The  Commission  regrets  to  report,  from  information  received 
from  time  to  time  in  the  shape  of  complaints  and  protests,  that  while 
perhaps  this  Executive  order  operated  as  a  check  for  a  time  upon  this 
practice,  yet  it  has  been  resumed  and  the  assignment  of  persons  ap¬ 
pointed  to  unclassified  positions  to  the  regular  performance  of  classified 
duty  is  again  being  made  to  a  considerable  extent  ....  It  is  noted 
that  the  number  of  unclassified  labor  positions  increases  out  of  all  pro¬ 
portion  to  the  need  for  mere  unclassified  labor  while  in  some  cases  the 
number  of  persons  actually  engaged  in  such  labor  is  reduced  to  the 
smallest  proportions.” 

When  such  practices  exist,  in  the  face  of  inhibitory  pro¬ 
visions  of  law,  do  you  not  think  they  will  tend  to  increase, 
or  even  become  the  rule,  when  they  are  given  nominally,  or 
constructively,  sanction  of  law  ? 


19 


THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  RE-INSTATEMENT  RULE. 

The  last  specification  concerns  the  removal  of  another  im¬ 
portant  safeguard  against  abuse  : 

(5)  It  permits  the  re-instatement,  within  the  discretion  of  the 
respective  department  officers,  of  persons  separated  from  the  service  a 
any  previous  time  for  any  stated  reason. 

The  President’s  new  rule  on  this  subject  is  as  follows : 

“  Any  person  dismissed  from  the  service  upon  charges  of  delin¬ 
quency  or  misconduct  may  be  re-instated,  subject  to  the  other  conditions 
of  these  rules,  without  regard  to  the  one-year  time  limit  of  this  rule,  upon 
the  certificate  of  the  proper  appointing  officer  that  he  has  thoroughly 
investigated  the  case  and  that  the  charges  upon  which  the  dismissal  was 
based  were  not  true.” 

When  it  is  considered  that  a  review  of  any  such  case — from 
one  to  twenty  years,  perhaps,  after  the  removal  has  been  made, 
must  necessarily  be  of  an  ex  parte  character,  and  that  all 
the  influence  the  candidate  for  re-instatement  may  be  able  to 
secure  will  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  officer  whose  judg¬ 
ment  is  to  decide  the  matter,  the  dangerous  character  of  this 
rule  is  perfectly  patent.  Removals  have  frequently  been 
made  in  the  past  for  insufficient  or  trumped-up  reasons,  and 
against  these  the  League  has  repeatedly  protested,  but  the 
effort  to  right  such  wrongs  in  this  manner  will  lead  to 
the  commission  of  other  similar  wrongs  in  the  future,  and, 
eventually,  to  political  reprisals  with  each  change  of  party. 
There  will  be  constant  temptation  to  make  vacancies  in  order 
to  permit  re-instatements.  The  service  will  suffer  from  the 
return  of  relatively  incompetent  and  unfit  men,  and  the  prob¬ 
lem  of  superanuation  will  be  further  complicated.  That  these 
will  be  the  results  can  be  shown  by  example;  In  one  division 
of  the  Pension  Bureau,  following  the  last  change  of  adminis¬ 
tration,  nineteen  special  examiners  were  dropped  to  permit  the 
reinstatement  of  veterans,  to  whom  the  time-limit  has  never 
applied.  Of  the  men  dismissed,  eighteen  were  Democrats, 
and  one  a  Republican;  all  I  believe,  had  been  appointed  after 
examination,  and  the  fitness  of  none  had  been  questioned. 
That  such  occurences  will  multiply  when  the  pressure  for  rein¬ 
statement  under  the  new  rule  begins  to  be  felt — and  particu- 


20 


larly  at  the  time  of  a  change  of  party  control — cannot  be 
doubted. 

Your  statement  that  the  Commission,  by  its  own  practice, 
indicated  approval  of  this  plan,  is  incorrect. 

THE  PRESENT  NEED. 

In  its  address,  the  League  stated  that  the  reduction  of  the 
area  of  the  competitive  system,  and  these  retrogressive  changes 
in  the  rules  that  I  have  shown  followed  a  long  succession  of 
infractions  of  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the  law,  and  must  be  con¬ 
sidered  in  their  relation  to  these.  A  special  committee  has 
been  engaged  in  the  collection  of  the  facts  on  which  this 
statement  is  based  Except  in  so  far  as  has  been  necessary 
for  purposes  of  illustration,  I  have  not  given  these  facts  in 
detail,  for  the  report  of  that  committee  will  shortly  be 
published. 

You  have  said  that  it  had  become  generally  understood 
that  the  extensions  made  in  1896  were  “  too  sweeping,”  and 
that  President  Cleveland,  finding  this  to  be  the  case  himself, 
“  almost  immediately  took  out  some  officers.”  President 
Cleveland,  six  months  after  the  date  of  his  principal  order, 
excepted  seventy-eight  attorneys,  understood  to  be  engaged 
in  the  preparation  of  cases  for  trial.  The  extensions  were 
made  nearly  a  year  before  the  close  of  his  term  ;  during  all  of 
that  period  there  was  no  other  change.  The  pledge  of  the 
Republican  party  to  maintain  the  law  as  it  stood,  and  to  ex¬ 
tend  its  application  wherever  practicable,  was  given  after  the 
revised  rules  had  gone  into  effect.  The  direct  relation  of  that 
pledge  to  the  then  existing  situation  was  questioned  at  no 
time  during  the  campaign  of  1896.  It  is  the  evident  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  people — a  judgment  expressed  with  remarkable 
emphasis  by  leading  journals,  without  regard  to  party — that 
it  is  as  binding  to-day  as  it  was  when  it  was  made,  and  that 
in  its  present  action  the  administration  has  committed  a  grave 
e;  ror. 

I  am,  yours,  very  respectfully, 

George  McAneny, 
Secretary. 


3  0112 


99016492 


